It's one of the many trade-off between "fun" and "realistic". Like when you sleep it takes a couple of seconds, not 8/10 hours. When you drink or eat it's almost instant too. Changing clothes, idem. And we never bother the player with having to pee or take a bath. The same goes with walking, it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map. So we make it faster. And "walking faster" feels even more unrealistic than "running always", so running it is.

A well meant, but unintentional non-answer; remember, you are preaching to the choir; [most here that played the original games probably take most of those points as a self-evident]... However, "fun" and "realistic" are both ~highly~ subjective, and I disagree with your "it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map". I played FO3 mostly walking slowly in the wastes, as far away from a town or any NPC as possible; because both of those are what ruined the game for me.

Gizmo wrote:Second off... if the system handled running and walking, it could restrict running to the unencumbered. Grimrock does this... It even restricts climbing ladders if the party is carrying too much baggage.

I don't think that's a good idea either, perhaps during Crisis, but not overall. Walking slowly when encumbered just puts the burden on the player,

Why is this bad? The player is roleplaying a PC in their life, in their situation; under their [the PC's] hardships... or is that a boring waste of time too? [That is roleplaying]. The whole point is to influence the outcome based on their personal strengths ~and more importantly their personal limitations; and this is taking some of those away.

In Fallout, the player DID often have to choose between hauling additional bullets ~or rockets, or flamer fuel, because hauling all three was impractical --That stuff was heavy. It was an egregious failing of FO3 to make ammo frugality a non-issue by making it all weightless.

The problem with that mindset being in charge of an RPG [thinking of Bethesda here], is they are not making an RPG, they are making an experience simulator, akin to an amusement park ride; very akin to the original WestWorld plot. Where they were selling the wild west experience to people that never forgot it was a theme park. BIG difference between the costumed park guests in Westworld, and the character's in the film Unforgiven; (and a tremendous difference in the quality of the characters ~because of their hardships, and limitations; and humanity). RPGs are more about character limitations than strengths... It's their job to say 'no', far more than yes. But these digital amusement park ride [rpg] like FO3, are only concerned with catering to the idea of the theme experience ~the character is practically in the way. They are making a shooter, and deciding ~for the player, that the player would [obviously ] rather shoot the gun than be bothered with inventory management.

I'm hoping that Torment is not planned as an Planescape experience simulator; rather than offering to play characters that live and survive there.

Did you play Planescape? That's not meant as a slight, it's an honest question. Do you remember the costume he could acquire in the Mortuary, it allowed him to pass indefinitely as a zombie, but running would tear the costume. So to keep it, the PC had to slowly amble about like a zombie. The player was literally roleplaying a PC that was himself roleplaying a zombie, and staying in character to not lose the freedom afforded by the disguise.

Also do you recall that in conversation the PC's limitations often dictated their ability to influence the outcome. There were times when the PC could notice a pickpocket trying to steal from them, and they could choose to try to grab the thief ~but succeed only if agile enough. Thankfully this was not some hamfisted quicktime event requiring fast button mashing [like the bar fights in Witcher 2]. This was often the player not getting their way, because their PC was not physically up to the task.

In conversations with Party members the PC's [personal] insight or acuity would open dialog options ~only if perceptible to them, or if they were capable of convincing the other character to agree. One of the most annoying things I've ever seen an RPG is skill tagged dialog options that are announced even to characters lacking the personal acumen to think of them. IE. [Science] "That was not cardiac arrest, it was caused by a shellfish toxin", [Intelligence] "So you fight the Good Fight with your voice...". Stuff the PC might never be able to say, and perhaps couldn't even read aloud.
Stuff the player doesn't need to know is in the game ~until they are running a PC with the right aptitude for it.

having to wait longer being half-bored, so the characters can carry the loot. Not fun, and doesn't add that much in term of realism (you should see the weird and creative solutions my PCs in pen&paper games find when I try to bother them with carrying loot, but you can't do that in CRPG).

True, and yet this is taking away the basic ability to walk ~instead of run.
Wouldn't it seem fitting that the cost of acquiring (and keeping) that gold, is to get it home safe ~despite hardship commensurate to it's weight?

Restricting climbing ladders why not, but it might just lead to micromanagement, climb ladder with half of the loot, deposit it on top, climb down empty, climb up again with the rest of the loot - that's something the party might very well do, and in a novel it would be a line the first time and then nothing, but that is just boring for the player to do, so like going to bathroom we skip it.

Those weren't suggestions, just notable examples. Grimrock slows the party down when overburdened, and this does actually make some challenges impossible, until they lighten the load.

Why is this bad? The player is roleplaying a PC in their life, in their situation; under their [the PC's] hardships... or is that a boring waste of time too? [That is roleplaying].

I don't agree that's what roleplaying is. In a novel, you would prehaps describe that the PCs are walking slowly because encombered, but you'll waste pages and pages to do so everytime that happens just so the reader feels it takes long. In a PnP game, the DM would probably notify the players that the PC are walking slowly, but again, he won't make the game session to drag on forever, each time the PCs carry heavy loot, that would be boring. The same goes in a videogame, IMHO. Like for the other examples I used.

Gizmo wrote:In Fallout, the player DID often have to choose between hauling additional bullets ~or rockets, or flamer fuel, because hauling all three was impractical

That's fine - put a carrying limit, or make the PCs move less _in combat_ (ie, in Crisis) when they are overburden, so they chose how much to carry. But when it has no in-game consequence, that it's just making the _player_ pays a cost of boredom to be able to carry thing... that's broken game design. The PCs carrying heavy stuff should have in-game consequences, the PCs should pay a cost if any, not the players. Like, there could be slow but regular Might pool drain to be encumbered. Or a penalty to Speed checks when encumbered.

Gizmo wrote:Did you play Planescape? That's not meant as a slight, it's an honest question.

Finished it like 4-5 times yeah (since 1999... how time flies fast !)

Gizmo wrote:Do you remember the costume he could acquire in the Mortuary, it allowed him to pass indefinitely as a zombie, but running would tear the costume. So to keep it, the PC had to slowly amble about like a zombie. The player was literally roleplaying a PC that was himself roleplaying a zombie, and staying in character to not lose the freedom afforded by the disguise.

That was fine to me because it's a very minor part of the game, so the mechanics do make feel the specialness of the situation (pretending to be a zombie) but doesn't last long enough to become boring - at least during the first playthroughs, on the latest ones it was slightly painful but bearable. But I agree it's very subjective.

Gizmo wrote:Also do you recall that in conversation the PC's limitations often dictated their ability to influence the outcome. There were times when the PC could notice a pickpocket trying to steal from them, and they could choose to try to grab the thief ~but succeed only if agile enough. Thankfully this was not some hamfisted quicktime event requiring fast button mashing [like the bar fights in Witcher 2]. This was often the player not getting their way, because their PC was not physically up to the task.

Sure, but that's all fine because it's all _in-game_. The PC spotting or not the thief depends on the abilities and skills of the PC. It doesn't depend of the player's ability to patiently wait for the party to take 5 minutes to cross the map with no in-game consequence. Again, I don't mind in-game consequences for the PC if he caries too much loot (at least, to a point), what I do mind is making it boring/frustrating for the player with no real in-game consequence (remember, in TTON game time only advances when you rest).

I was really glad that my Wasteland 2 party could walk. I haven't played the Torment beta lately, but I'll be sad if my character has to run around like a lunatic everywhere he goes. Want me to pass the salt? Here, let me SPRINT to the other end of the table and SWOOP down to grab it and SPRINT back !!!!!!!

kilobug wrote:

Gizmo wrote:Why would any character run all of the time?

It's one of the many trade-off between "fun" and "realistic". Like when you sleep it takes a couple of seconds, not 8/10 hours. When you drink or eat it's almost instant too. Changing clothes, idem. And we never bother the player with having to pee or take a bath. The same goes with walking, it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map. So we make it faster. And "walking faster" feels even more unrealistic than "running always", so running it is.

There's an important difference between what you don't see and what you do see. It's fine that we don't watch my hero comb his hair every morning; it's not something that's dramatically necessary or interesting. It might be neat, but we don't need what it would add. It's OK for it to not be on the screen. And "walking across the street" qualifies as dramatically unnecessary as well, as you point out.

But what we DO see on the screen definitely matters. And when I DO see my hero rushing down a peaceful street - or through a library - or across the mayor's office - as if he's being chased by a gang of rapists and mutants, what I DO see looks stupid. When Team Echo was searching the area of the Radio Tower, looking for clues to a murder, it would have looked equally stupid for them to be running past everything. For me, the atmosphere and the situation demanded that what I saw on the screen be measured, dramatic, and thoughtfully paced. Since Torment is selling itself on being measured and thoughtful, more based on words and ideas than tits and explosions, it only makes sense to allow the player to set his own pace.

Zombra wrote:Since Torment is selling itself on being measured and thoughtful, more based on words and ideas than tits and explosions, it only makes sense to allow the player to set his own pace.

Also it's too damn gorgeous. It would be so, so nice to enjoy the scenery, while my character is strolling through the streets of Sagus Cliffs, like an awestruck peasant, he definitely is in this case.

Running is best for consecutive walkthroughs and backtracking. And it's not nearly the same scale of work, as Foci.

Definitely, something worth to consider.

Last edited by Firkraag on February 12th, 2017, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Zombra wrote:Since Torment is selling itself on being measured and thoughtful, more based on words and ideas than tits and explosions, it only makes sense to allow the player to set his own pace.

Also it's too damn gorgeous. It would be so, so nice to enjoy the scenery, while my character is strolling through the streets of Sagus Cliffs, like an awestruck peasant, he definitely is in this case.

Running is best for consecutive walkthroughs and backtracking (and RP, as was already said). And it's not nearly the same scale of work, as Foci.

Personally, I don't find the walk from the General Store to Ye Olde Pub especially fascinating either.

Firkraag wrote:Also it's too damn gorgeous. It would be so, so nice to enjoy the scenery, while my character is strolling through the streets of Sagus Cliffs, like an awestruck peasant, he definitely is in this case.

So stand still and take it all in. Maybe take a screen shot. Make it your wallpaper.

Luckmann wrote:Not trolling. It's a console game. Cutting out walking is extremely common in consolized games.

Firkraag wrote:Also it's too damn gorgeous. It would be so, so nice to enjoy the scenery, while my character is strolling through the streets of Sagus Cliffs, like an awestruck peasant, he definitely is in this case.

So stand still and take it all in. Maybe take a screen shot. Make it your wallpaper.

A~ah... You're just a lost soul!

I mean, seriously, I don't play the first day. Your suggestions however well-intentioned, are nonetheless redundant. I have my own experiences and more importantly - tastes and preferences. They won't change overnight, whether Torment would have this feature or not.

I don't argue with you and won't start a crusade over feature I happen to like. I just wanted to share my feelings on the subject with those, who care. If someone will take a notice and think "Actually, yeah, we can totally do this.." then nice. If not - it won't hurt me or anything.

Zombra wrote:I was really glad that my Wasteland 2 party could walk. I haven't played the Torment beta lately, but I'll be sad if my character has to run around like a lunatic everywhere he goes. Want me to pass the salt? Here, let me SPRINT to the other end of the table and SWOOP down to grab it and SPRINT back !!!!!!!

kilobug wrote:

Gizmo wrote:Why would any character run all of the time?

It's one of the many trade-off between "fun" and "realistic". Like when you sleep it takes a couple of seconds, not 8/10 hours. When you drink or eat it's almost instant too. Changing clothes, idem. And we never bother the player with having to pee or take a bath. The same goes with walking, it's just boring and a waste of time to watch your party walk for long, slowly, around a map. So we make it faster. And "walking faster" feels even more unrealistic than "running always", so running it is.

There's an important difference between what you don't see and what you do see. It's fine that we don't watch my hero comb his hair every morning; it's not something that's dramatically necessary or interesting. It might be neat, but we don't need what it would add. It's OK for it to not be on the screen. And "walking across the street" qualifies as dramatically unnecessary as well, as you point out.

But what we DO see on the screen definitely matters. And when I DO see my hero rushing down a peaceful street - or through a library - or across the mayor's office - as if he's being chased by a gang of rapists and mutants, what I DO see looks stupid. When Team Echo was searching the area of the Radio Tower, looking for clues to a murder, it would have looked equally stupid for them to be running past everything. For me, the atmosphere and the situation demanded that what I saw on the screen be measured, dramatic, and thoughtfully paced. Since Torment is selling itself on being measured and thoughtful, more based on words and ideas than tits and explosions, it only makes sense to allow the player to set his own pace.

I actually think that this really gets to the heart of the issue. It's not so much about a want to walk as a want not to run everywhere.

“The pessimist complains about the wind;
the optimist expects it to change;
the realist adjusts the sails.”

Zombra wrote:There's an important difference between what you don't see and what you do see. It's fine that we don't watch my hero comb his hair every morning; it's not something that's dramatically necessary or interesting. It might be neat, but we don't need what it would add. It's OK for it to not be on the screen. And "walking across the street" qualifies as dramatically unnecessary as well, as you point out.

But what we DO see on the screen definitely matters.

I guess we have different expectations and priorities here... I don't mind that the scale of buildings and characters is completely off, as it's the case in most isometric CRPGs, even if it's something you "do see", for example. And it's just one example among many - a lot of things are abstracted and simplified in a CRPG, and the characters always running isn't any weirder than the buildings being so tiny compared to people. But I guess it's very subjective...

Zombra wrote:There's an important difference between what you don't see and what you do see. It's fine that we don't watch my hero comb his hair every morning; it's not something that's dramatically necessary or interesting. It might be neat, but we don't need what it would add. It's OK for it to not be on the screen. And "walking across the street" qualifies as dramatically unnecessary as well, as you point out. But what we DO see on the screen definitely matters.

I guess we have different expectations and priorities here... I don't mind that the scale of buildings and characters is completely off, as it's the case in most isometric CRPGs, even if it's something you "do see", for example. And it's just one example among many - a lot of things are abstracted and simplified in a CRPG, and the characters always running isn't any weirder than the buildings being so tiny compared to people. But I guess it's very subjective...

I'm not sure I really understand the point of that comparison - I never said it's a good thing that building scales look weird. Even if it was, just because one thing looks weird doesn't mean it's OK or a good idea for everything to be nonsense.

In any case that's not the only reason I dislike "always run" - the thing that really bothers me about it is that it looks stupid and it is my character doing it. I can handle walking around among a city made of giant mushrooms; that's the game world. But if my characters start screaming and smearing jelly on themselves when I'm just trying to get them to do their jobs, that sucks because now they are acting crazy out of my control. This is how I feel every time I click the ground and my guy starts rushing around for no reason. When my own character makes no sense to me, it's a problem.

Zombra wrote:I'm not sure I really understand the point of that comparison - I never said it's a good thing that building scales look weird. Even if it was, just because one thing looks weird doesn't mean it's OK or a good idea for everything to be nonsense.

It's all a matter of trade-offs between realism/abstraction and fun/playability. The building scale is weird on the outdoor maps, because having the building to scale would make the map enormous, which would create technical problems, but also playability problems - of having to scroll a lot/not seeing much at once, and of waiting too long for the party to move from point A to point B. Realism is slightly sacrificed, abstraction is made, even if it means showing on-screen something which is a bit silly.

That's exactly the same with "always run", it's a trade-off between realism and playability. Having characters take too long to move around is not fun, it makes the game more boring, so abstraction is made and the characters always run on screen - but that doesn't mean they actually run in the game world, the same way that having building appear 2m wide and much bigger inside than outside doesn't mean they actually are 2m wide and all made of dimensional magic in the game world.

Zombra wrote:This is how I feel every time I click the ground and my guy starts rushing around for no reason. When my own character makes no sense to me, it's a problem.

That's why I said it's very subjective - seeing the characters always run on screen disturbs me much _less_ than having the impression the inside of the inn is bigger than the whole city it is in, which does happen in BG/PsT/PoE/... but I understand the tradeoffs behind it, and sure it's better that way.

kilobug wrote:
That's exactly the same with "always run", it's a trade-off between realism and playability. Having characters take too long to move around is not fun, it makes the game more boring, so abstraction is made and the characters always run on screen - but that doesn't mean they actually run in the game world, the same way that having building appear 2m wide and much bigger inside than outside doesn't mean they actually are 2m wide and all made of dimensional magic in the game world.

Zombra wrote:This is how I feel every time I click the ground and my guy starts rushing around for no reason. When my own character makes no sense to me, it's a problem.

That's why I said it's very subjective - seeing the characters always run on screen disturbs me much _less_ than having the impression the inside of the inn is bigger than the whole city it is in, which does happen in BG/PsT/PoE/... but I understand the tradeoffs behind it, and sure it's better that way.

Hence the request for a toggle. that way you don't HAVE to always run or always walk, You have the choice to choose from. And can choose to change how you move and at what pace.

Taziel wrote:Hence the request for a toggle. that way you don't HAVE to always run or always walk, You have the choice to choose from. And can choose to change how you move and at what pace.

Sure, as I said above, I don't necessarily *oppose* such a toggle, and in a perfect world there would be one (as there would be a toggle to display the characters much smaller in the outside map so the buildings are in scale, or whatever). But in the material world, with limited budget and resources, and where every such toggle means something else is not done or not polished in the game, I don't think it should be among the priorities.